Author Topic: Combat Train (Read 8379 times)

RifleMech · « **on:** 10 July 2019, 00:21:25 »

With their tracks so vulnerable are combat trains worth investing in?

RoundTop · « **Reply #1 on:** 10 July 2019, 01:54:33 »

Only as artillery platforms with some light anti - infantry deterrents.

Kit deSummersville · « **Reply #2 on:** 10 July 2019, 07:23:26 »

The Davions decided against it.

AlphaMirage · « **Reply #3 on:** 10 July 2019, 07:56:21 »

It is a nice way to get an easily transportable heavy turret however if it is well integrated into your defense network. You need big long range weapons though just like any other heavy turret and it is more a strategic asset than a tactical one that will need some additional protection from ground or air attack (air attack can be potentially made very costly with many LB-5X or AC/2s). It would be best for carrying cruise missiles (like the Soviet missile trains) or sub-capital weapons.

I think it would be treated more like a land ship than a tank.

Kit deSummersville · « **Reply #4 on:** 10 July 2019, 08:29:42 »

Quote from: AlphaMirage on 10 July 2019, 07:56:21

I think it would be treated more like a land ship than a tank.

It'd be treated like a train...we have rules for those. And published some!

Colt Ward · « **Reply #5 on:** 10 July 2019, 10:03:02 »

He was talking about strategic theater/planet use . . . .

So you can get things like this, where the train fires cruise missiles & sub-caps and you can move it closer to a possible landing zone or interdict orbital craft. The problem is firing sites are going to be sort of limited which means predictable, you are on rails which again means your firing is sort of predictable, and its harder to protect the assets b/c its easy to track the launchers- rails!

Now if we got OS Cruise Missles . . . might make it more viable (cost/volume), but I think it would make vehicles a better alternative since they might not have to be as heavy as the Kalkri (volume).

Mohammed As`Zaman Bey · « **Reply #6 on:** 10 July 2019, 11:42:23 »

If both sides require the tracks, they won't destroy them.
I've used armored trains to assault cities and supply my offensives. The enemy also required the rail system to bring up supplies and reinforcements so there was tacit agreement to refrain from inflicting lasting damage to the rail network. Trains, on the other hand, were fair targets.
Due to the usual, total warfare philosophy of the Inner Sphere, the use of armored trains would be limited to rare but interesting scenarios.

dgorsman · « **Reply #7 on:** 10 July 2019, 14:01:52 »

Airspace would have to be at least heavily contested. Any less control and it's not worth much. If supplies are being moved frequently via rail, they would probably make sense for security and occasional Q-train for ambush busting. They're still highly vulnerable to special forces/saboteurs as it takes very little investment for a large payoff.

truetanker · « **Reply #8 on:** 10 July 2019, 22:01:11 »

And then you have that huge CF factor for the Rails themselves.

Which is why I use the Nolan MagLev in any of my scenarios... with a level 1, 1 hex-wide terrain wall along each side of the track to discourage said attacks. Basic rules is level 1 hill, three hex wide with tracks in the middle following terrain as a built-up mound. I might put a paved road along side it crossing over when it needs to. Any tunnels or bridges that need to cross it can be done as well. Just make sure you allow a Level 2 opening for the train or otherwise... unless it's supposed to be Vehicular traffic.

TT

RifleMech · « **Reply #9 on:** 13 July 2019, 00:49:51 »

So trains are worth investing in but only in limited situations?

Would it help if trains mounted ASF cubicles and could launch their own fighters for their defense?

I can see both sides wanting to keep as much infrastructure intact but wouldn't the invaders need to capture a train to use the rails? Or bring one with the right gauge?

Do we know how long it'd take to lay down rails and how long to pull them up again? If it didn't take too long an engineering platoon on either side could allow trains to go almost anywhere, if slowly. Right?

Frabby · « **Reply #10 on:** 13 July 2019, 01:05:21 »

Personally, I've always regarded trains as a strategic tool that can be moved around as required on the (strategic) map before the battle but turns into fixed gun installations the moment the shooting starts.

dgorsman · « **Reply #11 on:** 13 July 2019, 15:53:44 »

Laying down sleepers and rails is relatively easy. The difficult, time consuming part is setting out the alignment and prepping the road bed (and that's for conventional rail, not including exotics like electromagnetics, overhead wires, etc.). It involves moving around a lot of material, mostly fill but some cut as well.

Rail lines aren't entirely limited to benefiting trains. The right of way can be useful for vehicles and infantry especially in rough terrain. Trenches and berms can provide good cover for infantry. Speaking of which, high rail vehicles can be useful for moving small numbers of infantry around, drawing less attention than a full train. And now I want to design a light APC like that...

Daryk · « **Reply #12 on:** 13 July 2019, 16:06:54 »

The real problem with trains in BT is fusion. BT's fusion rockets are ridiculously efficient, so it's not actually economical to invest in rail as long as you can build them. Granted, if you can't, they might become feasible again. Rail in the real world only loses to transport by sea, and it all comes down to fuel consumption. Once you have fusion (especially rockets), bulk transport gets REALLY cheap.

Mohammed As`Zaman Bey · « **Reply #13 on:** 13 July 2019, 18:02:37 »

Quote from: Daryk on 13 July 2019, 16:06:54

The real problem with trains in BT is fusion.

The benefit of rail is that it's pre-Industrial Age technology. Low tech, no need for highly skilled scientists, no need for high tech components and resources.
A rail network would move far more cargo (or passengers) from one side of a continent to another more economically and efficiently than a fleet of fusion-powered aircraft. In 2010, in South Korea alone, rail traffic accounted for 10 gigatonne-km, while Japan's total doubles that. I don't see fusion replacing an established urban subway system.

Daryk · « **Reply #14 on:** 13 July 2019, 19:33:42 »

A fusion powered rail network, certainly. I'm less sure about any other kind.

Mohammed As`Zaman Bey · « **Reply #15 on:** 13 July 2019, 20:40:59 »

Quote from: Daryk on 13 July 2019, 19:33:42

A fusion powered rail network, certainly. I'm less sure about any other kind.

It would depend on the era. I recall reading a "Mad Max" (Succession War) era article that said the Houses would seize any fusion generator for military use, so they became primary targets for raids. Downtech systems using electricity generated by fossil fuels, solar, hydro or wind would be less of a target for civil or government pirates. Most of those systems (such as diesel engines) wouldn't even need collage graduates to maintain and operate.

While a House military may have unlimited funds to splurge on cutting-edge technology, most local governments and businesses do not.

Daryk · « **Reply #16 on:** 13 July 2019, 20:44:17 »

Solar might be able to compete, at least if there are sufficient energy storage means to enable 24 hour operations. It's hard to compete on cost when the fuel cost is zero.

Retry · « **Reply #17 on:** 13 July 2019, 21:44:11 »

Quote from: Daryk on 13 July 2019, 16:06:54

The real problem with trains in BT is fusion. BT's fusion rockets are ridiculously efficient, so it's not actually economical to invest in rail as long as you can build them. Granted, if you can't, they might become feasible again. Rail in the real world only loses to transport by sea, and it all comes down to fuel consumption. Once you have fusion (especially rockets), bulk transport gets REALLY cheap.

Hmm? Are you talking about just regular fusion for electricity or some mechanical things (like trucks, boats) or using fusion for thrust for, like, dropships for transport?

dgorsman · « **Reply #18 on:** 14 July 2019, 00:13:16 »

The first post had me thinking "rocket trains". And how very BattleTech those would be.

Mohammed As`Zaman Bey · « **Reply #19 on:** 14 July 2019, 01:08:22 »

Quote from: Daryk on 13 July 2019, 20:44:17

Solar might be able to compete, at least if there are sufficient energy storage means to enable 24 hour operations. It's hard to compete on cost when the fuel cost is zero.

Until you consider the price of a fusion engine over ICE...or BT vehicles would all be fusion powered to save on fuel costs...

SCC · « **Reply #20 on:** 14 July 2019, 02:14:44 »

Quote from: Retry on 13 July 2019, 21:44:11

Hmm? Are you talking about just regular fusion for electricity or some mechanical things (like trucks, boats) or using fusion for thrust for, like, dropships for transport?

Presumably DropShips. Problem is that sub-orbital hops are only faster on trans-continental journeys and maybe the longest continental ones, in the real world taking a train is actually quicker then flying for distance shorter about 500 km, and I can't see that changing in BT.

Daryk · « **Reply #21 on:** 14 July 2019, 06:03:02 »

Quote from: Mohammed As`Zaman Bey on 14 July 2019, 01:08:22

Until you consider the price of a fusion engine over ICE...or BT vehicles would all be fusion powered to save on fuel costs...

I did the math on that in another thread. The bigger the engine, the longer the pay back period, but it's always there. In the long run, everything should be fusion. I think the Star League was getting there, but that whole Amaris thing derailed that development... ::)

RifleMech · « **Reply #22 on:** 14 July 2019, 06:57:18 »

Quote from: dgorsman on 14 July 2019, 00:13:16

The first post had me thinking "rocket trains". And how very BattleTech those would be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbojet_train

Like this?

beachhead1985 · « **Reply #23 on:** 14 July 2019, 09:23:56 »

For some limited applications, these would be useful.

On a contested planet; one with an ongoing guerilla presence, it might be useful to have armed and armoured cars incorporated into trains hauling supplies and troops through dangerous areas.

One use for a separate armoured train is to procede the supply train looking for mines/demolitions on the tracks with sensors or attached infantry.

On a border world or one with very rough terrain; armoured trains would be useful to convey a heavy defensive asset quickly to a particular point or along a line which needed to be held or at least used to slow down an invading force. Artillery trains can be a very useful means of getting those big guns into position in impossible country quickly.

What the Russians planned to do with theirs in the 1950s/60s was run a train equipped with armoured wagons fitted with turrets from T-10 Heavy tanks out into the steps and spread the cars out across a few kilometers of open ground. As armoured forced approached; they would use their stable firing platforms to do maximum damage before the engine would butt them together and move them quickly away.

Retry · « **Reply #24 on:** 14 July 2019, 11:34:20 »

Quote from: Daryk on 14 July 2019, 06:03:02

I did the math on that in another thread. The bigger the engine, the longer the pay back period, but it's always there. In the long run, everything should be fusion. I think the Star League was getting there, but that whole Amaris thing derailed that development... ::)

I'm a bit curious to see that calculation.

Daryk · « **Reply #25 on:** 14 July 2019, 13:30:19 »

Here's the link to the thread: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=64998.0

Retry · « **Reply #26 on:** 14 July 2019, 15:04:26 »

Interesting. But it only seems to take into account two things: Initial Cost and Fuel Cost. And from a strict game-reading, basic simulation perspective it's probably fine. But from an in-universe perspective, there's a lot more that goes into it than that though, including fixed O&M and variable O&M. Your fuel cost might be zero but maintenance will not, since nothing human-made lasts forever. For things like commercial utility-scale power plants, O&M and capital costs are usually far higher and dominate more so than the raw cost of fuel. So fusion fuel might be effectively zero, but O&M would not.

And even if Fusion engines did become dominant for 100% of purposes, there's a very simple method that requires exactly 2 things that will keep rail-based freight relevant.
1. Fusion Utility-scale Power Plants
2. Electric Trains

Daryk · « **Reply #27 on:** 14 July 2019, 15:12:27 »

O&M costs in Campaign Ops are only based on the size of the vehicle, not the kind of power plant it has, so I ignored that bit. One person brought up training of technicians as a possible issue, but I pointed out Technician/Nuclear is a default skill in the "Technician-Vehicle" skill field.

RifleMech · « **Reply #28 on:** 14 July 2019, 21:31:09 »

Quote from: beachhead1985 on 14 July 2019, 09:23:56

For some limited applications, these would be useful.
(snip)

Sounds good. Hadn't thought of using it for sweeping mines. Good idea. :thumbsup: It all still depends on the rails not being destroyed though. Right?

Retry · « **Reply #29 on:** 14 July 2019, 22:31:27 »

Quote from: Daryk on 14 July 2019, 15:12:27

O&M costs in Campaign Ops are only based on the size of the vehicle, not the kind of power plant it has, so I ignored that bit. One person brought up training of technicians as a possible issue, but I pointed out Technician/Nuclear is a default skill in the "Technician-Vehicle" skill field.

Probably a case of simplification so we can actually play a game/simulation thingy about big stompy robots than an actual, literal perfectly accurate representation on the economic realities of various powerplants of the fictional universe. Kind of like how a given weapon has exactly 1 never-varying (and usually arbitrary) C-Bill cost across the entire universe in space and time.

beachhead1985 · « **Reply #30 on:** 15 July 2019, 19:22:46 »

Quote from: RifleMech on 14 July 2019, 21:31:09

Sounds good. Hadn't thought of using it for sweeping mines. Good idea. :thumbsup: It all still depends on the rails not being destroyed though. Right?

Indeed! But depending on the type of rails and their sophistication; basic anti-tamper systems built into the rails to alert you if a section is destroyed are very possible....or you have a power-in-the-rails system and you find out when your train shuts down...

RifleMech · « **Reply #31 on:** 16 July 2019, 06:28:05 »

Quote from: beachhead1985 on 15 July 2019, 19:22:46

Indeed! But depending on the type of rails and their sophistication; basic anti-tamper systems built into the rails to alert you if a section is destroyed are very possible....or you have a power-in-the-rails system and you find out when your train shuts down...

So you know where the track is broken but can still otherwise function. I would think the train would still want some AA defense since aircraft are a big threat.

beachhead1985 · « **Reply #32 on:** 16 July 2019, 09:11:18 »

Quote from: RifleMech on 16 July 2019, 06:28:05

So you know where the track is broken but can still otherwise function. I would think the train would still want some AA defense since aircraft are a big threat.

you're darn skippy, they would!

RifleMech · « **Reply #33 on:** 17 July 2019, 01:46:12 »

Flak ammo for everyone!

truetanker · « **Reply #34 on:** 17 July 2019, 19:54:12 »

Which is why I prefer the canon RML-447 Nolan MagLev...

I built three new variants of the LevCar:

Since each LevCar can carry up to 200 tons, I've built the famed LT-MOB-50 Rail Long Tom.

( Cargo LevCar, just added the Mobil Long Tom as is and a standard Partisan AAA tank. 95+80= 175 tons with 13 tons cargo. )

Field Repair : Contains a Demolisher turret with a built-in lift hoist, paired backhoe buckets and a single AC/20 for " field modifications ".

VTOL Carrier: Same Cargo LevCar, just added 2 VTOL pads and a single 100 ton Vehicle bay. meaning a forward tank repair bay.

TT

beachhead1985 · « **Reply #35 on:** 17 July 2019, 21:02:40 »

Quote from: truetanker on 17 July 2019, 19:54:12

Which is why I prefer the canon RML-447 Nolan MagLev...

I built three new variants of the LevCar:

Since each LevCar can carry up to 200 tons, I've built the famed LT-MOB-50 Rail Long Tom.

( Cargo LevCar, just added the Mobil Long Tom as is and a standard Partisan AAA tank. 95+80= 175 tons with 13 tons cargo. )

Field Repair : Contains a Demolisher turret with a built-in lift hoist, paired backhoe buckets and a single AC/20 for " field modifications ".

VTOL Carrier: Same Cargo LevCar, just added 2 VTOL pads and a single 100 ton Vehicle bay. meaning a forward tank repair bay.

TT

So the LongTom and Partisan are literally just carried as cargo? Nice historical paralelles there! I went and made a rail-mobile LongTom...They are hard to make legal!

truetanker · « **Reply #36 on:** 17 July 2019, 22:01:19 »

Yep!

2 Sperry Browning MGs per side, LT gun mounted backwards, Partisan parked in front of the LT on the trailer so it can swing freely, it's MGs are facing forward... the Nolan tractor is pushing the LevCar backwards... so it's MGs are facing in reverse.

Since Artillery is firing towards the rear while the Nolan is crawling back towards the lines... the angle is higher... so up and over. Also I can carry three (3) free Infantry Platoons to handle any track security.

TT

beachhead1985 · « **Reply #37 on:** 18 July 2019, 09:41:49 »

Quote from: truetanker on 17 July 2019, 22:01:19

Yep!

2 Sperry Browning MGs per side, LT gun mounted backwards, Partisan parked in front of the LT on the trailer so it can swing freely, it's MGs are facing forward... the Nolan tractor is pushing the LevCar backwards... so it's MGs are facing in reverse.

Since Artillery is firing towards the rear while the Nolan is crawling back towards the lines... the angle is higher... so up and over. Also I can carry three (3) free Infantry Platoons to handle any track security.

TT

3 for free, you say?

truetanker · « **Reply #38 on:** 18 July 2019, 16:01:52 »

Each LevCar carries a Platoon, Tractor carries 2!

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/RML-447_Nolan
In addition to its weaponry, the engine carries two foot infantry platoons which can be used to provide security for the train.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/RMC-3050_LevCar
All LevCars are designed with a bay for a foot infantry platoon.

Now I only used a LevCar and a Nolan tractor to run my LT-MOB-50 train.

3 for free!

TT

beachhead1985 · « **Reply #39 on:** 18 July 2019, 17:35:14 »

Quote from: truetanker on 18 July 2019, 16:01:52

Each LevCar carries a Platoon, Tractor carries 2!

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/RML-447_Nolan
In addition to its weaponry, the engine carries two foot infantry platoons which can be used to provide security for the train.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/RMC-3050_LevCar
All LevCars are designed with a bay for a foot infantry platoon.

Now I only used a LevCar and a Nolan tractor to run my LT-MOB-50 train.

3 for free!

TT

Cool! I never noticed the infantry before!